Re: beyond langauges

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 1:53:53 PM on Saturday, April 26, 2008, mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 1:31:59 PM on Saturday, April 26, 2008, mkelkar2003
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> Witzel does. Mittani Indo Aryan aika>Sanskrit eka hence
> >>>> Vedas are younger than 1500 BCE.
>
> >>>> QED
>
> >>> Also Indo-Eurasian research msg # 9913
>
> >>> "G. Thompson writes:
>
> >>>> the numbers are Indo-Aryan, not Iranian. aika > eka
> >>>> [contrast Avestan aiwa]; satta > sapta [contrast Avestan
> >>>> hapta]. Bjarte is right to leave this question to
> >>>> Indologists or Iranists, because we can tell the
> >>>> difference between Indo-Aryan and Iranian words, as well
> >>>> as their gods.
>
> >> Obviously irrelevant: the question was whether anyone
> >> distinguished the terms 'Indo-Aryan' and 'Indic'.
>
> > aika is Indo-Aryan and eka is Indic.
>
> Which has nothing to do with the G. Thompson quotation
> above.
>
> > http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.htm
>
> > "Again, if there was an (early) emigration out of India by
> > (Vedic) Indo-Aryans it would be surprising that even the
> > Mitanni documents do not show typical South Asian
> > influence.[N.153] Rather, is obvious that the remnants of
> > early IA in Mitanni belong to a pre-Rgvedic stage of IA, "
>
> And now we see that you're earlier claim was mistaken:

he

> does not make a terminological distinction between
> 'Indo-Aryan' and 'Indic'.
>
> > So there WAS an EARLY IA before the PROPER IA of the Rig
> > Veda.
>
> 'Indo-Aryan' refers to a *family* of languages. Of course
> this family has representatives from different periods.
> Punjabi (for instance), is a modern representative; Vedic
> Sanskrit

is a much older representative; and the traces of

> an IA language in Mitanni appear to represent an older stage
> yet. This has nothing to do with the original question.
>
> Brian
>

Indo-Aryan' refers to a *family* of languages. Of course

> this family has representatives from different periods.

That is not how the family tree model works. Every stage is given a
new name. For example, IIr branches into Indo-Aryan and Ir. If there
was an earlier stage of IA it must be given a different name.

If an argument is advanced that aika>eka then they BOTH cannot be from
the same language or even the same family of langauges.

M. Kelkar